Wednesday, July 25, 2012

As the Stratfor video states the Syrian regime may be standing on its last
legs. Of course the common media (CNN, Fox, MSBC, BBC etc) will report this as
good news, for a variety of reasons, with perhaps some mild hand wringing about
the signs that Al-Qaida is now becoming active in the conflict.
But the news media will probably, actually most assuredly it will not, go into
why the regime is falling.

This is not quite the case in Syria. There is a more centralized resistance,
though I do not think it strong enough to prevent fractional infighting, it is enough
that the rebels could prevail without direct intervention by the West. The US,
and most importantly, the Arabs, have been funding and supply the rebels in
their fight against Assad’s regime. The question is why? And the answer is that
the US wants to contain Iran, which had been expanding its political influence
in the region since our invasion of Iraq. The Assad regime was closely aligned to;
in fact you could argue they were a proxy state of, Iran. The US is playing a
game that is has for decades in the Middle East.

This has begun isolating Iran, and more importantly taken away the political
initiative from them. Moreover the fall of Syria will be net losses for Russia
and China as well. There are some major risks though; Al-Qaida is starting to
show up in the region, which increases the risk of an islamified state being
put in place. But the truth is that US has probably learned, after our fighting
in Iraq, and Afghanistan, that outside of the worst third world cesspools, the
amount of influence the militants will wage is probably limited. Once again with Iraq and Afghanistan being examples. This doesn't
mean that Al-Qaida couldn't be successful, remember their primary goal isn't
the defeat of America so much as it is the establishment of either a new caliphate or baring that Islamic fundamentalist
regimes, but the US has determined that the risks outweigh the potential costs.

Now before we rail against the imperialism/colonialism/militarism/whatever
of America we must take into account this; that the Arabs have a vested
interest in the fall of the Assad regime. They are terrified that Iraq could fall under dominion of Iran. And if it does, and if Assad remains in power, then there would be a crescent of nations under the sway of the Iranian regime. Even if America does nothing, the
rebels would have been funded by the Arab nations and the game would largely
play out the same way. In this case the US is getting involved probably to have
some chips in the game to help counter any potential regional powers, and of
course Al-Qaida.

Now I would prefer that the US not be involved. I think the threat of
Al-Qaida is over stated. We saw how they spectacularly failed in Iraq. They had
a population, a substantial minority that was unhappy with the American occupation
that was willing to side with Al-Qaida. But Al-Qaida was so brutal that they made their
erstwhile allies (the Sunni tribes) the strongest American allies in the
country. But I also understand why the US does so (get involved). It's not for oil, but because
of a foreign policy that has been on auto-pilot since the days of the Cold War. We originally
became involved in the Middle East to keep it away from the Soviets. And like
so many government programs, what once might have made some sense (though that's still debatable), continues on
long past the point of reason.

I don't know how involved our government is in that affair (the rebellion in
Syria); it could be very little and it could be a lot. But they are most
certainly involved, and the reason why is because its stuck playing a game that
has long since ended. We need to remember that the Middle East isn't as
important as we think it is. We get more oil from Canada alone than we do from the entire
region. And the reason we became involved was that we traded our economic power,
by offering to trade them money and weapons for their oil, in exchange for them
to not outright align themselves with the Soviet Union. However, despite the
fact that I think we could pull away from the Middle East and suffer little to
no real geopolitical consequences, the fact is that we are stuck. Governments
are always playing the last inning of the last game.

But that being the case, we need to also remember that we are not the only
nation doing this. A country's involvement in geopolitical affairs is directly
related to their ability to do so. For powerful nations like America, China, or
Russia that means covert actions and interfering in the governments of other
nations. For smaller weaker nations, such as Switzerland, that might simply
mean laundering money for despots. This is part of the reason why I am not as
dovish as other libertarians (nor am I as hawkish as neo-cons).

The idea that we can return to colonial style foreign policy is not only
historically wrong, the United States did involve itself in foreign affairs
from the get go such as the Barbary
wars, but not realistic. I understand that circumstances will dictate
action, action that I might not like, but action nonetheless. That being said,
by and large, a substantial portion of our foreign interactions, Iraq, Libya,
Kosovo, etc, are unnecessary and counterproductive to our long term ends. In
fact the US has a luxury that most other nations do not, we can afford
inaction. The US is so powerful; our dispute of the oceans and of space is
unchallenged, that if our nation’s leaders were a bit wiser, they would realize
that we can do nothing and be no worse off.

But keep this one thing in mind. Whether or not the US had gotten involved
with Syria the end result would have been the same. Too many other nations have
an interest in seeing the current regime fail.

About Me

Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels.
This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.

Running Reading List

Finished Reading This Year:Enjoy the DeclineA Throne of BonesThe Way of KingsWar Dogs CoinThe Last Witch KingThe Twelve Caesars

To Read List:The Revenge of Geopgraphy: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against FateEmerging Economies: Geopolitics of the BRICS NationsAs I Walk These Broken Roads

Free Man Reading List:-The Bible-Freakonomics-The Peasant Prince: and the age of revolution-Alex Storozynski-Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It)-William Poundstone-Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics-Henry Hazlitt-About Face:-Angelo Codevilla-Federalist Papers-Wealth of Nations-Second Treatise of Goverment-Reflection on the Revolution in France-A Vindication of Natural Society-The Prince and the Discourses-The Conscience of a Conservative-Anarchy, State and Utopia-The Road to Serfdom-The God of the Machine-What's Wrong with The World-Outline of Sanity-Liberty DefinedTime for ChoosingThe Manipulated ManSelf-RelianceThus Spake ZarathustraHow I Found Freedom in an Unfree World